Le Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 05:25:18PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov a écrit :
Dear Dmitry,
> 1) Question #1: what would be the best way to emphasise/distinguish
> difference between license of a software as a whole from the license
> of the most of its source files?
It is possible to use a License field in the Header paragraph, to summarise the
license of the package as a whole. There, you can explain the consequences of
combining GPL-2+ and GPL-3+.
> 2) Would it be accurate to merge two paragraphs above if there
> is no overlapping copyrights (but the same license) or
> is it better to keep two separate paragraphs?
It is less accurate, but permitted by the syntax. It is your choice. For
large packages, it will save a lot of time to the maintainer to collate the
copyright statements. For the packages I maintain, I like to give a separate
paragraphs to works that, although distributed under the same license, are
obviously independant, like contributed scripts, convenience copies of
libraries, etc.
> 3) Would it be correct to assume that files with lack of license header
> are covered by the license of a software as a whole, and therefore
> their copyright can be added to the very first DEP-5 paragraph
> or
> if such files qualify for standalone paragraph? (If latter is true,
> what's would be the best to put in License field?)
Note that this question is not specific to the machine-readable format. The
same problem arises when writing free-form copyright files.
There is no other solution than using common sense or contacting the authors.
For example, in case of works in a "contrib" directory, it can be questionnable
if they are distributed under the same license as the main files. For files in
the main source tree, it may be that the authors just forgot to add a notice.
In doubt, you need to contact the upstream authors.
If it is clarified that files lacking license notices are under the same
terms as the other files, they can be included in the same Files pattern.
> 4) Are the files with license header but no copyright, qualify for inclusion
> into second DEP-5 paragraph listing most of the contributors releasing
> files under matching license? (This is a license of roughly >95% of
> files in the package)
> 5) Are files with no license and no copyright qualify for standalone
> paragraph? (If not where would be the best to list them)
> 6) What would be the best way to describe such files according to DEP-5
> if this difference is significant?
Same as above. If you have doubts about the redistribution terms of a file
in a source pacakge, then you must not upload to the Debian archive. If you
write a machine-readable Debian copyright file where a Files paragraphs has
a pattern that matches everything ("Files: *"), then you basically state that,
in your opinion of maintainer, all files that are matched by that pattern,
regardless of the notices they contain or not, are distributed under the license
stated by that paragraph. For the copyright statements, the current practice
is to reproduce them and optionally combine them. If they are missing, then
there is nothing to reproduce.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120212073835.ga9...@falafel.plessy.net
